American Politics during the Obama Presidency

With Toymann's counter-bet terms and Walleye's admission, we see their confidence in the magnitude of Republican wins is not as strong as prior posts would have you believe.

That didn't take long!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Even considering the national mood, Republicans winning control of both houses is a stretch.[/QUOTE]Kudos for stating that. But it begs the question, with all the rhetoric about socialism destroying the country, shouldn't Republicans be winning across the board? Dems just implemented a huge liberal agenda "against the will of the people". If that is true, why would anyone vote for them?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]By the way, the $26B package that Nancy is trying to get through is a give-way for local teachers and their union (or maybe it is the other way around) This is truly obscene since these people are paid by local governments and the Federal Govt payoff is clearly a bribe. [/QUOTE]Just distributing back the bribe that Republicans gave the rich.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one. [/QUOTE]Nigel Gault, chief U. S. Economist at IHS Global Insight.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.

Alan Blinder, Professor of Economics, Princeton University.

Their numbers don't match exactly but are in the ballpark of those in the official CEA report (not Walleye's exaggerated numbers). Although if you add in TARP the numbers go up even more.

Zandi: Financial rescue and stimulus responsible for saving or creating 8.5 million jobs.
[url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/zandi_financial_rescue_and_sti.html[/url]

How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End
[url]http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf[/url]

Speaking of "facts", do you guys have any to refute the CEA numbers? Do post.

[QUOTE=Toymann]I am up for a little Madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the House and Senate stay Democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the Republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at Madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm, no Madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the House and Senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy Democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours.[/QUOTE]LOL. There's no additional risk for me beyond what I was ready to accept - I pay if Republicans win both chambers.

But you substantially cut your risk. Instead of paying if Republicans don't win [I]both[/i] chambers, you now only pay if Republicans don't win [I]any[/i] chamber. If you had real conviction you would accept the wager I proposed. I think you wussed out.

Just for the record I have never given a sweep much thought but now am curious. I have always said that in Novemeber the Congress will switch from 60-40 to most likely 40-60, or at least the dems are history. That said, sadly we will be in a holding pattern for two years till Obomanation gets the boot and recovery has a chance to begin. Kinda sad reality really. I am being a gentleman by allowing my boy an out if the house doesn't switch. That said, if I make the double it will be an expensive night for Esten at Madahos as I have expensive tastes. LOL. As you all know, the congress change has already been conceeded by even the most crazy liberals on this board by their silence. Only time will tell, but never confuse my benelovance with weakness. I was just giving my ***** Esten a shot to gracefully retreat from an expensive evening at Madahos. That said, "lets get it on buddy". I return in October but also return in April. Right now I'm looking for a killer evening at Madahos in April 2011. Let the games begin. LOL.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann.

PS. Majority is a majority dude. That means that if both the Senate and the House change to Republican I'm good. That said, it doesn't equate to 60-40, just 51-49 or the equivalent number in the house. You are currently sitting with both in your favour dude. If both go Republican buddy it will be quite historic indeed. Why would such a shift occur if your boy Obomanation had game with America. Lets see what transpires in Novemeber. Good luck dude. Let the better man reap the Madahos pussy!

While the rest of the world seems to be in some sort of economic recovery, the United States is faced with the double wammy of a lousy economy and no pussy.

The lousy economy doesn't bother me so much. The no pussy is a deal breaker.

We need political candidates who will stand up for what we really need - the granting of unlimited visas to all babes in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Columbia etc. who want to live in the United States and agree to charge South American rates.

[QUOTE=Toymann]Just for the record I have never given a sweep much thought but now am curious. I have always said that in novemeber the congress will switch from 60-40 to most likely 40-60, or at least the dems are history. That said, sadly we will be in a holding pattern for two years till Obomanation gets the boot and recovery has a chance to begin. Kinda sad reality really. I am being a gentleman by allowing my boy an out if the house doesn't switch. That said, if I make the double it will be an expensive night for Esten at Madahos as I have expensive tastes. LOL. As you all know, the congress change has already been conceeded by even the most crazy liberals on this board by their silence. Only time will tell, but never confuse my benelovance with weakness. I was just giving my ***** Esten a shot to gracefully retreat from an expensive evening at Madahos. That said, "lets get it on buddy". I return in October but also return in April. Right now I'm looking for a killer evening at Madahos in April 2011. Let the games begin. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

PS. Majority is a majority dude. That means that if both house and congress change to republican I'm good. That said, it doesn't equate to 60-40, just 51-49 or the equivalent number in the house. You are currently sitting with both in your favour dude. If both go republican buddy it will be quite historic indeed. Why would such a shift occur if your boy Obomanation had game with America. Lets see what transpires in Novemeber. Good luck dude. Let the better man reap the Madahos pussy![/QUOTE]Make the trip switch from October to November. Then, you and Esten can sit and hold hands in El Alamo while the votes come through from CNN / Fox. I might come just to watch the event. Unfortunately, it's going to be a tie.

Esten, you have been stating for some time the mid- terms will be within the normal range regarding Dem's losing seats in both houses and not the water shed of 1994 or worse. So why don't you back off your criticism of WW since you are just as guilty. I think the bet is fair as I earlier outlined.

Black Shirt, you hit the nail on the head, we don't have any politicians who are willing to make the tough choices and cause the economic pain necessary to get the economy on the right track or cut back the "entitlement" and other give away programs that are bleeding us dry. What the hell are taxpayers doing financing the home loan industry (Freddie / Fannie) or in the auto business (Chrysler / GM) They all want to patch it over and let the next guy deal with the realities, I think we are quickly coming to the end of this luxury and it is going to be bad. Regan did it but it took nearly two years of pain to get us out of Jimmy Carter's "stag-flation" the Dem's left him.

El Alamo, naw you don't want to bring all those fine girls from Argentina to the States, in two years they just morph into American girls and you are right back where you started. I have known several airline pilots and a few regular Joes who have done that to their regret just a couple of years after getting them here. After that it is like the old Eddie Murphy skit where the African wife he got out of the boonies comes in and says "Eddie, I get HALF Eddie, HALF!"

Enjoy and Monger On Guys!

I don't know where the thread on the U. S. Economy is but if I could invest in anything it would be in the U. S. Government aka Big Brother. No matter what it keeps growing. Unprecendented deficits, unbelievable operational inefficiencies don't seem to bother it. A workforce which specializes in 4 hour coffee breaks, 16 weeks a year of vacation, 20 weeks a year of sick leave and a fully funded retirement at twice your last salary can not slow down this train wreck. The fact that it can't even manufacture a safety pin without losing money is of no concern. It just keeps growing.

Somebody tell me what stock exchange handles this monstosity which is able to defy every economic norm we have come to rely on. I'm ready to invest everything I have in it (whoops, probably already have with the predatory tax structures they are putting in place)

I just thought I would put this out here, a discussion a little different from the economic situation.

I was watching Glenn Beck yesterday. Yeah, I know - anyone with a liberal bent (even a small one) will most likely immediately start saying what a quack / scare monger / idiot / racist Beck is. Maybe even some conservatives would have problems with him.

However, he has some very good points (when he's not all involved about talking about his relationship with "GOD" at least - I don't like that part of him) about economy and the people with whom Obama has surrounded himself (but that's actually another discussion) One would have to actually watch him to understand, as badly as he is vilified by the "mainstream" press, and those who are openly far to the left as well.

Yesterday he had a short segment at the end of his show related to the mosque that is being proposed in Mahattan a few blocks away from "Ground Zero." He was talking to a comedian who was proposing building an Islamic-friendly gay bar next door to the mosque (I think the discussion was tongue-in-cheek, but the comedian seemed pretty serious even as he was laughing) Personally, I found the concept quite hilarious, particularly some of the names they were bandying about as to what to call the bar. Such as "Jihot" or "Grind Zero." I can't remember all of them, but they were extremely funny. I was seriously laughing out loud in my office.

At that point, my sister-in-law, who is 14 (almost 15) and from Paraguay, asked me what was so funny. So I began to explain the whole controversy related to building the mosque. The first words out of my mouth were no more than "there is a group of Muslims who want to build a mosque a few blocks from where the Twin Towers (as they call them in Spanish) fell" and she interrupted me.

"What!" she said. "Are they nuts? Can't they see how insulting that would be?"

She said it so quickly I was amazed. She caught the gist of the matter in just a few seconds. She doesn't have a lot of background about Muslims themselves, no prejudices against them or anything like that. She knew about the World Trade Center and all, understood that radical Muslims hijacked and flew the planes that crashed into the towers, but she understands very well that not all Muslims are terrorists who would do such a thing.

I explained that the mayor of NYC (among many others) are supporting that proposal, as painful as it is for most Americans (and how very much more dear it is for New Yorkers - I saw poll results that said 65% of New Yorkers oppose this! I think it was only 18% or so that supported it and the rest were undecided) She just couldn't understand how anyone would 1) as a Muslim want to build something so controversial so close to such a horrible disaster that would basically stick in so many people's craws and 2) how ANYONE in New York, much less anywhere in the US, would say that allowing them to build it there would be an appropriate example of "tolerance."

Just the other day, I was walking home with her from picking her up at school and we passed a magazine stand. She saw the Times picture of that beautiful woman who now lacks nose and ears because she ran away from her abusive family. I explained to her that in extremist Muslim countries this falls under normal behavior towards women.

She was shocked.

She's seen some pretty crappy stuff in Paraguay in the way "macho" men treat women, and it is pretty bad at times related to some of the things we are used to in more "civilized" countries, but this Times article "took the cake," so to speak.

Now, I'm not laying the call for tolerance directly at the feet of Obama and and his administration. I'm not even saying anyone can legally do anything to stop these idiots from going ahead and building this mosque and recreational center where they are planning on doing it.

Obama, as with most things that are uncomfortable with him (I don't know what he actually thinks about this) stated (or the statement came out of his press office at least) that basically it's a "local" issue and he shouldn't get involved.

To me, that kind of flies in the face of other things he has butted into on a local scale, from the cops (one of whom was black) who supposedly mistreated that black professor (Obama calling the cops' actions stupid) to the federal government getting so involved in Arizona making a law that allows local law enforcement to ask the immigration status of someone involved in illegal activity (which Obama comes out on and says now an Hispanic can't even take his son to have ice cream without worrying about being molested)

Legally, we do all have a right to rent and occupy buildings if we are complying with existing laws. Absolutely. However, to me, the fact that this Islamic organization is intending to go ahead with this no matter how people feel about this, and are complaining that the US is not open and tolerant enough to opposing views, just goes to show that they really don't give a shit (this particular group at least) what others think and have no intention themselves of being tolerant to others' feelings.

I understand that they were planning this before 9/11 actually occured. But what kind of excuse is that? Again, on Beck today, I learned there are 57 MILLION SQUARE FEET of open non-residencial rental space available on Manhattan.

Can they really not find a decent location in all of that space that would be far enough away from Ground Zero to make more comfortable the people who are still hurting from that cowardly, shitty attack on civilians?

That alone should tell you something about the people who are going forward with it (or trying to) and should also say something about "tolerance" American-style. Those particular Muslims are probably laughing their asses off as they watch us tear ourselves apart, still, over that national disaster that took place almost 9 years ago now.

Even a 14-year-old girl, raised in a different country, can see how harmful the actions of those particular Muslims are and how idiotic are the Americans who not only don't object to it, but actually support it as a show of "tolerance."

Count me an idiot. I don't think the question has anything to do with how many more rentable square feet exist elsewhere in New York. The question is: Why should they have to go anywhere else.

How about this question in the 1950s:

"How come them black folks have to drink out of our drinking fountain or sit in our bus seats. Can't they see how offensive that is to whites? Why don't they just use their drinking fountains and their buses?"

OK, I realize that blacks, in general, weren't responsible for perpetrating a significant act of violence on whites in any particular place, so perhaps the analogy is a bit strained.

So, how about this:

"How come all those Catholic folks have to build their churches in [pick any country in Mexico or Latin America]? Don't they realize how offensive that is to us natives, thousands of whom they made "convert to Catholicism" before executing so they would be saved?"

Is it different because the Spaniards kicked the indigenous folks' asses, so they can do what they want? Is it different because it happened a long time ago. Maybe. But it's no less offensive to them.

At any rate, I could care less what church, temple, mosque or house of worship they want to put up there. If they've got the funds and it's not illegal, let them do what they want. My only objection is that it shouldn't be tax-free.

I haven't been following the mosque debate. It really doesn't interest me much. I understand that people may object based on decorum, but what society governs itself on decorum? It's not really any different than when the Ku Klux Klan applies for a permit to hold a peaceful march. They have their First Amendment rights, too, regardless of whether some Klansmen in the past were vile, despicable and abominable people, and even if some existing Klansmen also fall into that category. What is the lawful right of assembly if it just means that the "right" except when the majority doesn't like it?

Mongers,

I've got to say I agree with Stan Da Man on this. As a native of the NY area who knew several people who didn't wake up to see the sun shine on September 12th I can tell you that I believe this religious group (or any other sanctioned and recognized religious group) should be able to put a church or associated facility wherever it is legally permitted by current law. Application of the law is supposed to be blind to religious affiliation. If the Mormons and Scientologists can get sanctioning as a legitimate religious organization (they are both cults) and put their churches wherever they want then the Muslims should be able to as well. Nobody seems to complain about Saint Patrick's Cathedral even though priests directly employed with the Catholic Church arguably ruined many more lives over the years through being child touchers and fear mongers than the 9/11 hijackers did with their bombings. In my opinion, Islam is a terrible religion that was created and maintained as a mechanism for controlling women and political power through pure brutality and savage coercion. To be even more stark, I think those people in the Middle East (and any other group that doesn't respect basic human and gender rights) are a bunch of completely brainwashed animals. However, if they are in the USA legally, and our government has recognized their religion, they have the same right to located their church where legally permitted as any other group.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Guys,

Please wake up!

Muslims have a long history of building mosques on conquered lands, and when built, that's exactly what this mosque will represent to the radical Muslim world.

We cannot let them have such a perfect propaganda and recruitment tool.

They can build their proposed mosque anywhere else, but not in south Manhattan.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]Guys,

Please wake up!

Muslims have a long history of building mosques on conquered lands, and when built, that's exactly what this mosque will represent to the radical Muslim world.

We cannot let them have such a perfect propaganda and recruitment tool.

They can build their proposed mosque anywhere else, but not in south Manhattan.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]There is already another mosque / islamic cultural center two blocks away that has been there for 40 years. Should that one be torn down?

I stated that of course the Islamic group has every right UNDER US LAWS to put up a mosque near Ground Zero. We can't do anything about it if they choose to go forward because they are not doing anyhting against the law - I fully understand that. But that was not the point I was trying to make.

In fact, I did err by even mentioning Obama's and the mayor's stand on this - they really should not be making a comment against this because there isn't anything they can do no matter how they feel - it is not against the law and rightfully they should not offend others standing against something that is not against the law.

I simply think it says a lot of the Islamic religion (or perhaps only this particular groups, and groups like them) that they won't even consider listening to the uproar and the serious feelings of being so close to a place where muslims killed thousands of non-combatant people and destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of property in one fell swoop.

A question - how many Islamic countries under Sharia Law would allow a christian organization to build a church, or even practice their religion - ANYWHERE? Here is one article among many I found when I did a search on the topic:

[url]http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/07/survey-how-easy-to-build-a-christian-church-in-a-muslim-country/[/url]

Yes, these particular muslims want to build bridges (their own words, stated many times in this debate by themselves) by ignoring the outcry and arrogantly proceeding with theor plans. Sure.

I think we have a right to be intolerant of something like the proposed mosque. Hell, if we had a country similar to those who practiced Sharia law, these guys might be put to death. I think just protesting their plans is pretty damned civilized. I think it shows a lack of civilization and understanding that they are not thinking about moving to another site less sensitive.

As far as Stan's examples - well, first of all, although the Klan has a right to peaceful assembly - how do you think a church who is primarily made up of black members would feel about the clan renting space next door, or a couple of doors down? You think there wouldn't be a pretty big uproar about that, legal or not? How many Democratic or liberal activists would get involved to have them move it as an affront to race relations?

Second of all, the Catholic Church actually listened to the people who went up in arms against the church when the church wanted to put some kind of church edifice (I don't remember what it was) near one of the concentration camps in Germany or Poland (don't remember which camp it was) from World War II and the church backed down and apologized for upsetting sensiblities and did not try to go forward with their plans. WWII is a scar quite a bit older than 9/11/2001, but the Catholic Church seems to be able to learn and change over time (except when it comes to pedophile priests, it seems!

Third of all, the Catholic Church committed a whole slew of violent idiocies in the past, not only in Latin America. As did the Protestant churches. The history of Europe during and after the Reformation in particular is filled with incredible religious idiocies that caused the deaths of countless people over a couple of hundred years.

However, yes, the distance of time makes a pretty big difference. Ask the people of Latin America now, descended mostly from a mix of the original natives and Europeans (mostly Spanish and Portuguese) how they feel about the Catholic Church. I think they will not have a problem having a church right next to, say, Chichen-Itza which was an old Mayan temple.

The funny thing is, the examples you picked, Stan, seem to be examples from things that happened in the past, and which most people now acknowledge were atrocities or at least bad things that happened, well in the past, and most agree that things that bother the sensibilities of others should definitely be taken into account.

Maybe in a couple of decades many people would not be so sensitive about this particular site. Depending on how many more acts of terrorism are committed on US soil by Islamic extremists in those intervening decades, of course.

The comedian I mentioned tried to contact the organization behind the mosque proposal via email regarding his proposal for a gay bar next door. When he received no reply, he Tweeted them and they answered something to the effect of "of course you are free to place whatever you would like next to the proposed building, but such an act would not help to contribute to communication, understanding and building bridges."

Huh. But of course, what that Islamic organization is proposing wouldn't really do that either would it? Is that really what they are about, as they say - communication and building bridges? They sure have a strange way of going about it.

I am a complete non-religionist. I hate to use the word "atheist" because it may have anti-religion connotations, and that is not what I'm about. What people want to do on their own time in their own places, I'm happy with as long as they don't push it on me. That goes for anything, not just religions.

However, I think religion in general has done so much damage in this world. In this day and age, all religions should be doing everything they can to not not impinge on the sensibilities of those of other religions and those who don't even want to be involved in religion, or shoulod take into account a public outcry when they plan something.

Sounds good Toymann. The wager itself was actually secondary to me, I was more interested to test your confidence in a Republican sweep. But since we are both good with the defined terms, the bet is on and the mid-terms will now be even more interesting. With a majority as you defined it. We may have to define some more terms on the evening down the road... I don't want you ordering bottles of champagne and taking out 2 dancers TLN! As I'm sure you don't want me doing either.

I won't be down until November after the elections. Not sure about first half 2011. If you win I'll try to find someway to leave the Madahos funds with someone / somewhere when I am down in November (I don't suppose Madahos has "gift certificates" haha...). And if I win you should plan on trying to get the funds for me to use on my November trip. If possible. We'll figure it all out when we get there...

As far as the mosque, I'm with El Queso on this. Although I will qualify that it depends on the exact layout, which I'm not clear on. If the mosque is going to be in clear view of Ground Zero visitors, I don't agree with it. If not then I'm OK with it.

Just because something is legal (and should remain legal) doesn't mean it is right or appropriate in all instances.

Ground Zero is a place of American identity and national unity. I think for many people going to Ground Zero, a mosque in view nearby is just going to be a small but definate interference to the reflection they came there for. I don't think there should be any religious reminders there, but in this instance a mosque would be particularly inappropriate in my opinion.